I think that the logic of the M38 and the M7 are 180° appart.

In the case of the M38, they add a scope (and a bipod) on a "high end" 5.56 mm assault rifle.

In the case of the M7, they build the system (rifle + ammo + optics) to deliver "better than DMR" performances (the 6.8x51 mm Training Practice round fired from a 13.5" barrel is already delivering better trajectory than the M118LR fired from a 20" barrel, and the trajectory of the high pressure 6.8x51 mm is close to a .338LM), then will probably downgrade the performances to "carbine level" by issuing the system without the scope.

Do you think that will happen if they adopt it? In the pre squad Layout with the new NGSW weapons there were just xm250 and M7 pictured.... Everyone had the same M7 rifle. (optic + Accessoires).

Do you mean in your post M7 rifle with optic for DM. And M7 without optic for rest of squad? 

Otherwise they could just issue the m4 carbine for everyone except xm250 and M7 for MG and DM. 

BTW..... Do you know if SOCOM s MRGG-A and MRGG-S project is still running? 

manimal87 said:

Do you mean in your post M7 rifle with optic for DM. And M7 without optic for rest of squad? 

I mean that probably not everyone will be issued a M157.

The US Army plan to acquire 100,000 M7. I don't expect the M157 to be way cheaper than 10,000 USD (the Wilcox RAPTAR-S is already 10,000 - 11,000 USD), so 10,000 USD x 100,000 = 1 billion of USD for optics.

You can expect to break around 2 scopes / 1000 / year, so around 2 million of USD per year to replace the scopes broken beyond repair, and probably 3-4 million to maintain those that could be repaired.

One M157 in every fire team will probably be enough, for example I don't think that the grenadier will use the M157 very much.

manimal87 said:

Otherwise they could just issue the m4 carbine for everyone except xm250 and M7 for MG and DM. 

And have to field 5.56 mm and 6.8 mm cartridges at the fire team level? Probably no.

The purpose of the 6.8 mm is to be able to defeat armor plates, you don't need a fancy scope to do that between 0 and 200 m.

EmericD said:

One M157 in every fire team will probably be enough, for example I don't think that the grenadier will use the M157 very much.

The one squad member with the M157 can call out ranges to the rest of the squad, who can then use their own optics to, at the least, deliver accurate suppressive fire.

EmericD said:

I mean that probably not everyone will be issued a M157.  One M157 in every fire team will probably be enough...

It seems the Army does not agree.

"...the XM157 Fire Control optic produced by Vortex Optics Inc., which will be mounted on every XM7 Rifle and XM250 Automatic Rifle."

Army moving forward with Next Generation Squad Weapon program | Article | The United States Army

stancrist said:

It seems the Army does not agree.

Yes, it's just my opinion, not the US Army opinion.

Of course, I can be wrong, but I really don't think that the US Army will spend 2.7 billions of USD to buy 250,000 rifle optics.

EmericD said:

I can be wrong, but I really don't think that the US Army will spend 2.7 billions of USD to buy 250,000 rifle optics.

It's not as if they would have to buy a full supply plus an equal number of spares all at once. 

A portion of the total is to be acquired each year, so the cost would be spread out over time.

       How many NGSWs are being ordered?

       Fiscal Year 2024 NGSW budget line item

I think it is quite possible that some personnel -- medics and engineers, for example -- may not have the M157 optic.

But, it really does not seem logical to me that any members of the rifle squad would not be equipped with the M157.

Probably try to give M157 to everyone using 6.8; but I wouldn't be surprised if an ACOG or red dot/magnifier combo becomes an issue item.

Of course, M157 was also described as "weapon agnostic", implying at least some were considering mounting them on other guns. 

assuming a BC of .200 for 762nato, whats the BC of 6.8? .250?

and what about MK262, is it on par with 762?

whats the BC of 6.8, is it higher than .200?

also i think they should have gone with a 6.5@ 2400ft lbs. it wuold match the 6.8 at long range